East and in eastern literature. When, therefore, these can be brought to bear upon the Scripture, without disturbing its context and spirit, they may with propriety be appealed to. Others, too, among whom Grotius and Bochart may be named as the most successful writers, have even had recourse to the literature of heathen Greece and Rome. Our rationalists, as it will presently be seen, avail themselves of these aids, but apply them to an extent, and for purposes, never dreamt of by these excellent men: they will cite authors of the kind alluded to, not merely for the purpose of solving philological difficulties, but of confirming their own sentiments and results. A Jewish cabbalist, for example, a heathen philosopher, a Jewish Targumist, an heretical Christian, or the author of a spurious gospel, is not cited in order to illustrate the construction of a sentence, the meaning of a word or phrase found in a gospel, or any other book of Scripture; but to determine its origin, meaning, intent, scope; not to act as an assistant, but as an authoritative interpreter. Quotations are then made from some of these precious relics of antiquity with a liberal and learned hand; and the immensity of reading, research, and learning,-which last, however, is not always to be implicitly relied upon,—are made to supply the place of genuine investigation, and to awe into agreement and error, all who may not possess either acuteness or learning sufficient to detect and expose the fallacy. These positions I shall now proceed to illustrate and confirm by a few extracts taken from the Christologia Judæorum of Bertholdt,* and some other works which have The following is the account given by this author of the materials from which he intended to draw his illustrations and proofs: "In numero fontium primariorum habeantur libri canonis Hebraici seriores, imprimis prophetici, Apocrypha Veteris Testamenti, Philonis Alexandrini et Flavii Josephi opera, Novi Fœderis libri, quibus multa a Judæis ingenio suo nativo convenienter prolata et a Jesu ejusque Apostolis, præcipue Johanne Apocalypseos auctore, Christologiæ Judaicæ congruenter et adcommodate dicta insunt, nec non nonnulla e Pseudepigraphis Veteris Testamenti, præcipue liber iste, qui sub nomine libri iv. Esdræ circumfertur. Accedunt denique, quibus auctoritatem fontium secundariorum adjungimus, libri Rabbinorum antiquiorum, imprimis liber SOHAR, utpote qui Christologiam Judæorum sublimiorem continet, neque tamen serioribus, veluti libro Nezach Israel,' qui syllogen vel conge This too is a work of the same stamp, compiled from the Gemara and Allegorical Commentaries. (See Wolfii Bib. Heb. vol. i. p. 420. art. 700. n. 8.) obtained currency in Germany, and which may therefore be considered as approved specimens of scriptural interpretation of this sort. SECTION III. ON BERTHOLDT'S CHRISTOLOGIA JUDÆORUM. THE leading principle upon which this work proceeds is that which has been termed "The historical interpretation of the New Testament;" and which Ernesti, Keil, Morus, and even our own Lightfoot, have recommended as of very great value. "I chose," says our author, "to treat on the Christology of the Jews (which prevailed) during the times of Jesus and his Apostles. And, I suppose, there is no one who will 'disapprove of (my) reason for doing so; for I entertain no fear that, of those who are truly imbued with a knowledge of theology, so much as one will hesitate (to allow), that from a right and sound knowledge of this matter (which, indeed, from the second century before Christ, if it did not entirely swallow up, did certainly surround as a foss and a curtain, nearly all the sacred knowledge of the Jews) will proceed the riem omnium diversarum id argumentum concernentium sistit, prorsus neglectis, quibus cunctis tamen ita utendum erit, ut ex iis nec quicquam adstruatur, quod non istorum librorum primi generis nobis cum maxime recensitorum testimonio distinctis verbis exhibito comprobatum, vel saltem vestigiis lucidis et certis in iis depromendis præmonstratum sit." (Christologia Jud. Proleg. pp. 10, 11.) We have seen, in the preceding pages, how much pains has been taken to make the sacred writers talk like the heathen philosophers, classical authors, &c.; we shall here see the same thing done with regard to the Cabbalists, of which the book Zohar is, perhaps, the most splendid instance of heathenish philosophical nonsense. 2 We shall also have the Platonic Philo and Josephus, the apocryphal and spurious additions to the Old Testament; and then will follow a host of Rabbins, men as ignorant of the real spirit and intention of the sacred writers as any Hindu, Buddhist, or heretical Christian ever was: and, from these impure and corrupt sources, the pure doctrines and offices of the Messiah are to be ascertained, adjudged, and fixed a lamentable specimen, indeed, of the great progress made in Biblical learning in Germany during the last half century ! 2 For a good account of the doctrines of the Cabbala, the second volume of Brucker's Historia Critica Philosophiæ may be consulted, a work of inestimable value. On the Zohar, see Wolfii Biblioth. Heb. vol. iii. p. 1141, art. 2175; and vol. iv. p. 1012, with the references. historical and just interpretation of the New Testament.' These sentiments are repeated in other places of this preface, and are frequently appealed to throughout the work; but it will not be necessary to multiply examples: we shall, therefore, now proceed, in the first place, to examine the principles here laid down. By Christologia or Christology, Mr. Bertholdt seems to understand, the opinions held by the Jews respecting the Messiah; and which, he holds, are to be found in their Targums, Commentaries, cabbalistical, and other works, ast already remarked. Now, without attempting to depreciate any means whereby a knowledge of the contents of the New Testament may be acquired (and a recurrence to the writings of the Jews has certainly been recommended as one), I must affirm, that the plan here laid down by Mr. Bertholdt, is the least of all likely to conduct us to a real acquaintance with the contents of this book. For this reason: The New Testament professes to teach doctrines diametrically opposed to those generally held, on the subject of the Messiah, during the times of our Lord and his Apostles, -doctrines which the Jews as a body, and particularly the learned part of them, rejected to the last. As to what they held on this subject two centuries prior to this time, neither Mr. Bertholdt, nor any other person can tell that part of his statement, therefore, must be set down as amounting to nothing. It may be asked, then, supposing we had the means of ascertaining the opinions of the Jews on these subjects, at the time specified, (which, however, does not appear to be the fact), is it likely that this knowledge would afford us a clue to the right understanding of the New Testament? Is it not probable, that those opinions would be more likely to lead us astray than the contrary? St. Paul declares, what indeed our Lord and the • "Placuit de Christologia Judæorum Jesu Apostolorumque ætate disserere; et neminem puto fore, cui hujus consilii ratio non ex omni parte probata sit. Nam non vereor, ne eorum, qui rerum theologicarum vere gnari sunt, vel unus in eo dubius hæreat, quin a recta ac solida hujus rei, quæ inde a sæculo secundo ante Jesum natum totam pæne Judæorum doctrinam sanctam ni vel absorbuit tamen vero vallo quasi fossaque circumvenit, expositione et cognitione, historica ac vera Novi Testamenti interpretatio fere omnis proficiscatur." prophets had declared before him, that their eyes were closed and their ears heavy,-that there was a veil on their heart, just as it had been predicted, and that blindness, in this respect at least, had happened to Israel. Under these circumstances, then, Mr. Bertholdt should, I think, have informed us, how this blindness, deafness, hardness of heart, &c. could be converted into the means of light, admonition, and life, with us; and how the truth be advanced by the mass of error which at these times confessedly prevailed. But Mr. Bertholdt explains: he says, that just as the progress of science, in the two centuries preceding the reformation, made way for that event, so did the wisdom of God attemper his Gospel to the prevailing notions, with the view of effecting a similar end; or, he prepared the Jews for its reception by thus influencing their opinions previous to its discovery. Nothing surely can be more unfortunate than this statement. Science, we are told, prepared the way for the reformation; and so the reformation took place. Providence, in like manner, prepared the Jews for the reception. of the Gospel; but, alas! they never received it. The preparation failed the Jews persevered in error: and this very system of error is now conjured up, as the only means whereby we can arrive at the truth of the Gospel! But Mr. Bertholdt contends, that passages are to be found in these writings of the Jews, agreeing with others found in the Gospels, and calculated to throw very considerable light upon them; and not only so, but also to point out the real sources from which those in the Gospels must have been derived. I answer: This can be proved only by an induction of particulars, and of such particulars, too, as are no where to be found. In general, no book now in the hands of the Jews, if we except the Old Testament, can be shewn to be so old as the times of the Gospels; and, if this be the case, how, it may be asked, can such proof be made. out? * There is still another consideration which should not be lost sight of. The passages alluded to, generally contain glosses upon one part or other of the Hebrew Bible; but Some have thought, that the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan are as old as these times but this is extremely doubtful. L no independent notions were entertained by the Jews, if we except those derived from heathenism. The Gospels, however, afford the most ancient and best possible commentary on the Old Testament; and, therefore, if passages are to be found agreeing with the Gospels, it is on this account alone that they can be deemed good; but not the contrary which would be the same thing as to argue, that because David Kimchi had, in the thirteenth century, happened to give a just interpretation of a prophecy relating to the Messiah, the Gospels which sometimes fall in with his notions, must be true, or vice versû! Again; many sentiments in unison with those in the Gospels are actually found in the profane authors, and even a considerable number of facts which are common both to the Old and New Testament. Had we not, therefore, better go to these profane authors at once for the origin of both! There are rationalists, I know, who do not hesitate to do even this; and, if I am not mistaken, they are unanimous, with Spinoza, in ascribing both to the same source; namely, the fervour, zeal, piety, and what not, of well-meaning but uninspired men, as already remarked. Let us proceed, however, to Mr. Bertholdt's work. -- Mr. Bertholdt, then, in common with the most learned leaders of his school, believes that he can, by a little ratiocination, account for all the phenomena of Christianity, so as to leave no doubt whatever on the minds of any, that it is a mere system of natural religion-that it has had its periods of improvement and degradation, all of which can be fixed upon and accounted for in the most satisfactory manner. "This hope," says he (i. e. that the Jews should have a Messiah who should subdue the world to their authority and rule), "if we look to its origin, took its rise from the very splendid notion of seeing better times, which had engrossed the founders of the Hebrew nation; which, men of later times, calling to mind the splendour of David's reign, confined to some one who should arise out of his house, and be endued with regal honour. This being done, they then celebrated this future king as the most excellent in regard to temper, wisdom, justice, humanity, piety, and fortitude; and hoped that, under his auspices, their commonwealth, blessed with perfect safety-their sacred rites also greatly augmented |